User talk:Apteva

Welcome!

Hello, Apteva, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bat capitalization RMs

Thanks for consolidating these discussions. Part of the reason RMs is so backlogged is editors not properly doing multiple page moves properly. I never thought before to consolidate them myself, but you've done so in a respectful, neutral manner that I may try to emulate in the future. --BDD (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And even better praise than a "barnstar". Apteva (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Your RfB

As soon as you are back online, please take a look at your RfB page. It would be good if you were to withdraw the RfB at this stage. Given both the current !voting margin and the substance of the concerns that have been expressed, there is no chance of its passing.

Some users have speculated that you might have meant to file a request for adminship rather than a request for bureaucratship. Could you clarify if this is the case? If it is, the sooner you withdraw the mistaken RfB, the better. I'd suggest you then wait for at least a few weeks before filing for RfA instead.

Of course, your contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, and should continue regardless of which titles you might have or aspire to. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and closed the page. I have to say I'm sorry. Although I don't know you, I always like to see new and fresh "blood" and good contributors in the community. There is no technical requirement to have first the "admin bit" before getting the bureaucratship, but since bureaucrats can promote other users to admins, bureaucrats should know what admins have to do and how hard it is to do the "right one". Please try to get more involved into the "administrative tasks" of the community and then try to get the right as admin before trying to become an bureaucrat. I really hope that you aren't upset of that kind of "formalities", but this community is big and this community had experience with "problematic" admins and thus not willing to give their "OK" to "everybody". Regards, mabdul 23:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And now you have met me. It was a bit pre-mature to close, but no worries. In future I would recommend 24 hours or 50 oppose votes, whichever comes first. But closing before the affected editor has even seen that anyone has voted? Apteva (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In the guidance, it states explicitly that non-admin contributors may close requests prematurely if uncontroversial, irrespective of the quantity of votes, thereby indicating that Mabdul's judgment is sound. Whereas he did not specify any policies, essays, or guidelines, I was actually in the process of closing your request concurrently per WP:SNOW, which reflected the direction of the discussion accurately and the probability of a successful outcome. Regards, Mephistophelian (contact) 00:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It was the timing that I was questioning. There are certainly no specific closing guidelines, but from a practical point of view I think if I was closing a similar RfA/RfB either as a non-admin, as an admin, or as a crat, I would wait just a bit longer (say the above mentioned 24 hrs), especially if the user/editor had not had a chance to reply even once. Who knows what they might have said? Apteva (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:SNOW - you would have had to have a lot more suppporters to pass a RFB. If there's no way that a candidate will pass, an uninvolved user may remove a RFA/RFB at any time. Waiting 24 hours would have resulted in even more opposes. --Rschen7754 01:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Apteva, I read through your two talk page archives and being a bit confused: I see you were blocked, confronted with multiple accounts, and finally a failed RfA. Yes, that is really old stuff, but normally a failed adminship candidate should read the "documentation" how to be successfully next time. As it seems you didn't that - and really - I believe you're doing a great job to improve the encyclopedia ("autoreviewer" right), I highly doubt that you are ready. When I said "Although I don't know you, [...]", I hadn't recognized you before. Why? Because I was 4-8 weeks "offline" and in that time you started to be active in the WP/WT space. Regards, mabdul 06:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

My history goes back about 4 1/2 years plus maybe a couple more as an IPUser. I learned through the clue-by-four method about 3RR. Not really a big issue. The point is that I learned. Privacy is a huge issue for me. I edit solely under the strict condition of anonymity - and am identified to the Foundation (not the Second Foundation). My only hesitation was adding another 1,500 edits before applying, but I did not see anyone else stepping up to the plate, and really edit counts are way over rated. Apteva (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:TPO

Hi, Apteva. Please do not edit my message; especially, please do not duplicate or use my signature. In Wikipedia, I am held responsible for word for word of what I write; therefore, I have the right to be held only and only responsible for what I write, not what others write in my name. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

My apology, but unless I made a horrible mistake I did not make any change to your message. What I did is format your message so that it is readable on WP:RM without having to scroll down the page an undo distance. Where there is a natural break, I copy the signature and duplicate it at that break, so that a portion appears on WP:RM and the rest is on the talk page. Where no natural break is possible, I simply duplicate the signature and add (see talk page). You are welcome to change the split if you wish, of course, but try to keep the first bit just a sentence or two - otherwise just a see talk page is better. Apteva (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, my friend, I have assumed good faith because I know you meant to do good. In fact, there are things that I don't mind if you did, such as fixing the indentation in case I counted the number of colons (":") wrong, fixing spelling mistakes, adjusting CSS parameters and even fixing date formats or replacing some templates for better ones. But adding a full sentence that I never said (in this case "see talk page") or adding a signature that I never added are essentially wrong. (In my country changing a single letter in someone's message is illegal; I try to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not my country but that should give you an idea of what I regard "horribly wrong".) In the future, please consider adding a message of your own that says you think [[Page X]] is worth seeing.

As for the break, yes, I myself gave it a thought but after weighing the situation, I decided against it. Personally, I love to keep greetings, body and closing in separate segments but not everyone likes and not every situation allows it.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To give you some history of WP:RM, it was created to provide a list of links to pages that have an RM discussion. Specialists in naming conventions use the list to see if naming conventions are being applied correctly. The list becomes unwieldy if the reason for the move goes beyond a sentence or two. It is not possible for me to insert my own signature, because it would have the wrong timestamp, and modifying the timestamp to agree with your signature would be just wrong. So to make the list work properly, I split the summary into a workable size, and in your case I am not the least concerned with styling or indentation, although the bot removes all indentation when it posts your summary onto WP:RM. What I am only concerned with is limiting WP:RM to a link to the discussion and a very brief summary of the reason for the move, or simply the instructions to see the talk page if no easy summary is possible. I could have used [see summary], which would have made it look more like "I am quoting you and have inserted explanatory text to make your quote understandable" but that would not, in my view, be as good as (see talk page). Another thing I could do is ask the author of the bot to truncate all summaries to 40 characters and use ... after that, but in my opinion a human split works much better (what happens if a valid summary is 41 characters, or 42?). Anyway, I appreciate your concern, and hope that this helps with your understanding of WP:RM. As to a "break" you will notice that I did not see any easy way to break your summary and simply moved all of it off of WP:RM, while retaining the timestamp which is used by WP:RM to determine how old the request is. Apteva (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It is also extremely useful to retain the username of the nominator, which is why the entire sig, even with all of the stylization if possible, is retained. Apteva (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization: Marine

Hi, Apteva! Thanks for framing my question about "Marine" into an appropriate discussion. However, there is a slight difference between my question and the way you stated it as a heading. Here's what you wrote: "When referring to individuals who are a member of a branch of service, such as the Marines, should they be referred to as marines or Marines? Apteva (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)" However, my question is based on the change to NY Times policy (as of Feb 2009), at which time it was changed to agree with other manuals of style (including that used by the Associated Press) to capitalize "Marine" -- but NOT to capitalize "sailor" or "soldier." Your statement implies the question refers to all members of the various branches of service. The way I am asking the question is: "When referring to individuals who are a member of the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Coast Guard, should they be referred to as marines or Marines, and coast guardsmen or Coast Guardsmen?" I just reposted the exact quote from the NY Times article on the MOS discussion page to clarify the decision of its editors:

"We will now capitalize Marine and Marines when referring to individual members of the United States Marine Corps. Under the previous rule, we capitalized references to the service as a whole, but lowercased “marine” in referring to individuals. We used to say, “Three marines were wounded in the fighting.” Now we’ll say, “Three Marines were wounded in the fighting.” (We’ll make a similar change to capitalize “Coast Guardsman,” though that comes up less frequently.)"

Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Misconception?

I see I'm not the only one wondering where you picked up the idea that our MOS says "proper names use hyphens" (as opposed to en dashes). I think the MOS is clear that it depends on the relationship between the connected elements. Many proper names are styled with en dash, when things are named after two people, or two places, for example. Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)